3. Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?  (Read 93 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« on: »
I live in London myself, and I have received a PCN on 4th of July 2026 from London Barnet council for parking without payment. I actually had a valid parking ticket at the moment the PCN was issued, but when I was obtaining it via PayByPhone app, I made a typo in my car's VRN: instead of AB12DDZ I entered AB12DZ (VRN is not real, only letters "D" are the same to illustrate the point).

So I made an informal appeal the next day, and quickly received a reply from the council dated 7th of July. They rejected the appeal. The reason was that I was supposed to obtain a ticket for the correct VRN, I did not, hence guilty. I decided not to give in and make a formal representation.

If I understand the rules correctly, to make a formal representation, I am supposed to wait for NtO, which should be issued 28 days after the response if the fine is not paid. Today is 15th of August, and I still have nothing in the post.

So, here are my questions:

1. Should I start getting worried that NtO is lost, or it is normal for NtO to be delayed? TBH, I expected NtO to be received sooner, considering how quickly the council responded to the informal appeal.

2. If the NTO is lost, what should be done then to be able to do formal representation?

3. I should have probably asked it earlier, but considering my case, what are the chances of me winning this appeal, either with the council or london tribunals?
« Last Edit: August 15, 2026, 07:04:30 pm by j_xella »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #1 on: »
First thing is to check that the address on the V5C is correct and up to date.
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #2 on: »
Quote from: RichardW on August 15, 2026, 08:25:21 pm
First thing is to check that the address on the V5C is correct and up to date.

It is correct, and I never moved since buying the car.
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #3 on: »
Post the PCN, no redactions, and your challenge and their rejection.

Most of us won't help without details.

The regulations - they have 6 months to serve an NTO.
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on August 15, 2026, 09:05:28 pm
Post the PCN, no redactions, and your challenge and their rejection.

Most of us won't help without details.

The regulations - they have 6 months to serve an NTO.
However, whilst they may have 6 months, the Statutory Guidance says: -

Quote
Issuing the notice to owner
If the penalty charge is not paid the enforcement authority may issue a notice to owner (NtO). The purpose of this is to ensure that the PCN was received by the vehicle owner and to remind the vehicle owner that the payment in full is now due and, if it is not paid within a further 28 days, it may be increased.

The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months [footnote 33] from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO. The regulations set out the information that the NtO must [footnote 34] give.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#training-and-professionalism-in-civil-parking-enforcement
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #5 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on August 15, 2026, 09:05:28 pm
Post the PCN, no redactions, and your challenge and their rejection.

Most of us won't help without details.

The regulations - they have 6 months to serve an NTO.

Sorry, this is my first post on the forum, so I hoped I provided enough details. This link contains screenshots of the PCN and first 2 pages of the rejection letter. There are more pages with photographic evidence, which I do not dispute.. Unfortunately, I do not have the text of my informal appeal, as it was done in a browser and submitted right away...
« Last Edit: August 15, 2026, 11:35:09 pm by j_xella »
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #6 on: »
'We have identified a valid payment for the parking session but this was against the wrong VRM.'

Doesn't even make sense. Either it was valid or it wasn't.

The PCN in this case, as in every case, states:
'PCN payable in respect of VRM ABC on the grounds: Parked without payment of the parking charge'.

The last time I bought a car it wasn't capable of making payments, so the issue is whether payment was made by the driver.

They accept it was.

Their unstated position is that simply because the VRM was incorrect a penalty is due. I don't think this can simply be the case and I doubt this simple approach is supported by a traffic order. Simplicity is the creation of council officers to make their lives less challenging. 


Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #7 on: »
Hi all,

This is a long post. Not asking for any questions, but telling how this story ended, if anyone is interested.


I got NtO eventually, so was able to make a formal representation. But before that, I did some searching, and at least for Barnet council there was this page. It contains the phone number to call if the code is not received. I hope other councils have something similar.


I won the formal representation, the PCN was cancelled. Not feeling especially jubilant, though - I won the fight that wasn't supposed to happen. They should have cancelled the PCN at the informal appeal and not waste everyone's time. I tried to be a nice guy during the informal appeal - it seems they took it as a sign of weakness. This time I went with all guns blazing, and the result was direct opposite of failure. Next time I will do this from the very beginning, even though I am not this kind of a person. This is the text of my representation, hopefully it can be of use to someone.

Quote
Statement:

I am writing as the registered keeper of vehicle ****DD* (proof attached: V5C certificate) to make a formal representation against Penalty Charge Notice AG****** issued on **/**/2026 at ******* Car Park.

On **/**/2026 at 09:56, I registered a valid parking session at location ******* via PayByPhone, covering the vehicle until 10:56 (proof attached: PayByPhone receipt). The PCN was issued at 10:43, well within the paid session time.

When entering the VRN into the app, I made a minor keying error by missing one of the consecutive 'D's, entering ****D* instead of ****DD*. This represents a simple, honest typing slip of a single character that could have happened to anyone.

In your rejection of my informal challenge (dated **/**/2026), the Council explicitly conceded: "We have investigated your case and identified a valid payment for the parking session; however, this had been for an incorrect VRM."

Under the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities in England on Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions
—issued under Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (to which the Council is legally required to have regard) — "authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest." A single-character discrepancy constitutes a Minor Keying Error, and easily qualifies for such discretion.

Also, the guidance officially designates suffix 'x' specifically for an "incorrect VRM" (as shown in Annex B). This proves that the statutory civil enforcement framework explicitly recognizes registration typos as a distinct category of error, rather than a total failure to pay. By treating a proven single-character keying error identically to a deliberate failure to pay (Contravention Code 73), and refusing to apply discretion, the Council is failing to have regard to the statutory guidance and is fettering its discretion.

Furthermore, the Council suffered zero financial loss. Under the ***** ***** Car Park tariff structure, a parking session of up to 1 hour is free of charge. Therefore, my registered 1-hour session was entirely correct for the duration, and no parking fees were evaded.

Enforcing a £110 penalty for a single-character typo where a valid parking session was obtained in good faith—and where your office has officially confirmed that this session was active in your system—is disproportionate, unreasonable, and directly contradicts the statutory guidelines.

I respectfully request that the Council cancel this PCN. Should this formal representation be rejected, I will exercise my right to appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals, referencing the Secretary of State's guidance, the official "incorrect VRM" suffix, and the Council's explicit admission of my valid parking session.

Yours sincerely,

******** *********

« Last Edit: September 05, 2026, 09:50:17 pm by j_xella »
Logged
Re: Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?
« Reply #8 on: »
Very well done. You got a result without needing to go to adjudication.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Fighting a PCN - notice to owner is delayed ?